Where we differ here is that I think that the pseudo-objective framework stands between the purely objective and the purely subjective, but is tied to both. The pseudo-objective is the transitory tool between the outside world of the physical universe, and the inside world of the self, which is then extended to multiple independent "selfs." You could probably call them phenomenological frameworks.
What is interesting about these frameworks, however, is that they are argued into very precise forms, then loosened back up when they fail, then tightened back up... But the difference here is that it is a process of refinement for the tools of discussion, and references the physical objective world with equal weight to references of the internal subjective. It isn't perfect objectivity, but its the very best we can do.
And I'm extending this to everything, not just art. Math is a framework, Physics, Chemistry, Feminism, Religion... You name it, and we have a transitional language framework that we use to discuss it. The terms frequently go up for debate, but the effort is always to refine the language-tool we use to suss out the objective world against ourselves and against others.
Yes, and without the pseudo-objective framework you can't even begin to discuss the objective. Which is what gives it the "power" to stand in for the purely objective.But the framework for the discussion, for an exchange of ideas is not the same thing as the discussion or ideas themselves. The framework -- the terms -- become essentially like the rock, a tool. They offer ways to describe views but are not the views themselves.
This is true. Part of the reason I'm not really letting this go is because there is a tendency to overstate the importance of the subjective end of the scale in the middle ground of the pseudo-objective. It is obviously unavoidable, but the process of agreeing on terms is done to ensure that everyone in the discussion is aware of the subjective meanings that are being applied by each other to the pseudo-objective terms. Each individual in a discussion contributes their personal subjective to the pseudo-objective framework.The assessment of whether a work is a creative work and then whether a creative work has value are subjective. So we can agree on what a rock is and we can agree, sort of, on the concept of a statue, but whether a pile of rocks qualifies as a statue is subjectively evaluated, and whether a pile of rocks statue has value as art is subjective.
I'd argue that they're inseparable. Art and Language are intricately connected, and probably developed together mutually in human evolution.Certainly we need common language, as we need common language to discuss anything, but that doesn't change the subjectivity of art in any way. Understanding of language is not the same as experiencing and assessing art.
And we don't respond emotionally, and physically, to sport? We don't assess it? We don't compare athletes and say this one is better than that one? We don't have favourites? We don't give MVP awards? We have an assessment language in sport the same way we do it art -- and a large portion of it is equally as divorced from the objective descriptions as with art.It's not exclusive to art, but art is still one of those things that is subjective because it is humans' personal, emotional experience of, reaction to and assessment of something.
You can measure those things, and they are sometimes good indicators of overall performance, but they are hardly indicative of the final performance. Two athletes with very different overall physical make-up can compete at the same level in the same sport. They will both do so differently. There is no universal set of criteria for a guaranteed great athlete -- just like artists.To determine why one person ran faster than another over the same distance, you can measure kinetic activity, lung capability, wind resistance, turning ratios, and many other factors.
Certainly the emphasis is on the physical, and there are much better descriptors for the physical that are strong indicators of the objective, but to say "X-amount of muscle mass is best" has virtually no empirical evidence in the objective world. Babe Ruth was a fat man, Mark McGuire was not. Both hit massive runs, but the fat guy was arguably better -- or at least just as good. Why is there an emphasis on physicality in baseball if it isn't necessarily relevant to performance?
I do agree with this, but I would add that the "counts" in a story can be used in shaping the subjective opinion -- which is where my assertion of the value of the pseudo-objective framework comes in. There is one act of murder/rape/mutilation/etc for every 97 words of Titus Andronicus. By ratio, compared to Shakespeare's other works, that is very high. As a measurable aspect of the work, compared to his other works, that fact can be used as evidence in an argument about Titus. One could equally use the existence of that fact to argue against its relevance in applying it to an interpretation of the text, but it is still something that we can measure and use, pseudo-objectively.You can also measure how long a story is and how many metaphors the author uses...
I didn't say it was! But overemphasis on the subjective, and poo-pooing the importance of the pseudo-objective layer that exists within any discussion, ignores the fact that there is a divide between consciousness and reality, and between my consciousness and your consciousness. The only work around for the solipsist problem and all those philosophy-things is the pseudo-objective model we all use to place ourselves and our creations within the physical world.Subjective is not a dirty word. That opinions about art are subjective does not lessen the value of having such opinions, or our ability to talk about them with each other and understand what the other person is saying without agreeing with it.
The pseudo-objective models we have are part of our development. Without them, we don't do much other than eat and poop. There's neither community nor culture without the pseudo-objective. And, there's no art without it. It is inseparable from both subjectivity and from objectivity. But it is the latter that allows us to ground our discussions in commonality.
I think Opinion necessarily makes reference to primary experience/knowledge of a subject. Prejudice has no such requirement. In that way, Opinion is a pseudo-objective process, Prejudice is subjective.Opinion: Prejudice: Taste:
Taste is.... well... complicated. But still partly objective. Otherwise you have to outright discard the proven predictive validity of Alfred Binet's work.